A Colorado judge will allow prosecutors to interrogate theater gunman James Holmes using truth serum if he pleads not guilty by reason of insanity.

Holmes is the suspected gunman involved in the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado last July. Holmes has been charged with multiple counts of murder for the open shooting, which killed 12 people and injured another 58.

Colorado Judge William Sylvester ruled that prosecutors have the choice to use truth serum on Holmes in a "narcoanalytic interview" to determine whether or not he was legally insane during the July 20 shooting last year. But this is only if Holmes pleads not guilty by reason of insanity.

A plea of not guilty had been entered for Holmes yesterday after his lawyer said that the defendant was not ready to enter his own plea. Holmes can later change it.

Legal experts have questioned Judge Sylvester's ruling, saying that taking away the fifth amendment rights of the defendant because of an authorization to use truth serum drugs will raise a lot of fifth amendment-related issues.

Also, a jury may object to the court forcing truth serum upon the defendant.

Medical experts have weighed in as well, saying that the defendant still has the ability to lie while using truth serum. They also said that truth serum would be effective at determining Holmes' current state of mind, but a short-acting barbiturate like truth serum would not indicate his state of mind during last year's shooting. It will only loosen him up to talk about it.

"First of all, people can still lie under the influence of amytal," said Dr. August Piper, a psychiatrist from Seattle. "More importantly, the person under the influence of the drug is susceptible to outside suggestion. To try and do this would be unlikely to yield useful information, and could pervert the course of justice by rendering the defendant susceptible to pressure."

Yes he had been planning this. It's a sign he wasn't suffering from temporary insanity at the time of the slaughter but rather, insanity for a period of time before it too.

I have no problem with a temporary insanity defense if a permanent insanity plea isn't possible, because it seems to match the crime. The problem I have is the differentiation in punishment, that I don't feel it is any less just to kill an insane person than a sane one.

I'd rather we didn't have capital punishment at all, rather that people guilty by reason of insanity are allowed to visit an in-house shrink once in a while during their normal stay in prison.

At the same time we need a competent shrink in there studying the guy so we can learn more about what makes him tick with the hope this information can be useful in the future.

We practically don't already. How many people were executed last year again?

quote: It's a sign he wasn't suffering from temporary insanity at the time of the slaughter but rather, insanity for a period of time before it too.

That's your opinion. I don't think you're even qualified to make such an assessment anyway.

quote: At the same time we need a competent shrink in there studying the guy so we can learn more about what makes him tick with the hope this information can be useful in the future.

That's the dumbest thing I've heard today. If he's "insane", then we won't learn any more from studying him than the thousands of other "insane" people available to study. And we certainly won't make any inroads into mental health.

Look it's this simple: When you plan on taking the lives of dozens, even hundreds of people, and carry that plan out you should be executed for it.